[gregski]

Gaming starts to have its own "civic" organizations too:

http://www.polygon.c...y-to-all-gamers

[Veleda]

grregg said:

@Veleda

That's interesting, the results that I quoted are not from just a single study. Gurr started the research in the 80s, but afterwards Cockburn, Eisner, Johnson, Monkkonen and Spierenburg pretty much confirmed it. And pretty much the same decline seems to hold for most Europe (and possibly other places as well, but the data are sketchy).

For example. Even studies that assert a high murder rate will often say that their conclusions are tentative because of the methodological problems. The ideological bias is strong, however. We like to assume that we're so much more civilized now. Even if the Gurr thesis is true, the fact that it coincides with the rise of authoritarian kingdoms in Europe and colonialism abroad means it doesn't really support what you're trying to say. It's nice that Londoners could get along with each other, but not so nice that they were off slaughtering natives elsewhere.

Similarly, people simply assume that warfare in the medieval period was incredibly bloody, when apart from a few well-publicized battles, the actual record of violent engagement is pretty low, especially under the influence of chivalry. It's in the modern period when the killing really gets going.

Anyway, this is interesting but a sidebar really. I just hear this Enlightenment prejudice when people say "but look at how nice everything is now, that's activism at work." More likely it's technology and wealth at work, to the extent that things really are better.

Quote

People were incredibly restrained by their societies. They didn't have a choice of what they want to do for a living, where they want to live, who they want to marry, what god to worship, etc.

Again, you're painting with a very broad brush. A medieval peasant in England would be very surprised to learn that he didn't have a choice whom to marry. I did a study on the marriage practices of the 16th century- reformers like Martin Luther were reacting against the practice of "unofficial marriages" whereby young people were hooking up without any kind of civil sanction. Luther would also be surprised to learn that people weren't free to marry whom they wanted. Many country people were unaffected by what gods people worshiped in the cities. And you could make an argument that the modern wage economy makes people less economically free than a peasant and artisan economy.

[grregg]

@Veleda

Thanks. But I have to ask, have you read the study you linked? It doesn't provide the population adjusted homicide rate, but it does give the dates, so we can search. Granted, it's hard to exactly match the areas involved, but according to Wikipedia, London had 20000 to 50000 inhabitants between 1300AD and 1350AD. So given the average of about 15 murders per year that Summerson calculates, it results in the rate of 30 to 75 homicides per 100000 people per year (the standard measure).

For comparison, now in London the rate is 2. During the peak of the 1990s crime wave, NYC reached to 30. And keep in mind that Summerson says that London was a relatively low crime area. In other words, in a low crime area in 1300 you likely had more murders than NYC at the peak of its recent violent period when people were scared that cities are becoming unlivable.

And as a side note, did you see the bloodiest incident mentioned there? Where 144 people were killed? Even if we assume the population of 50000, that's an equivalent of murdering 23000 New Yorkers today. Heck, these days we have interstate wars that don't kill that many people.

So no, Londoners couldn't get along but yes, they added to the misery by slaughtering other people as well.

And I have to ask again, can you provide some sources for the low casualty rate in medieval wars? I'm afraid that the data I've seen generally point the other way. Chivalry had a major effect on how the stories were written, but the practice of warfare was quite bloody. Especially that medieval knights were effectively warlords and they fought with each other constantly. Accidentally, one of the most effective ways of undermining the enemy's strength was to burn/destroy/maim his villages, crops and peasants. I'm sure you can imagine the gory details.

Tuchman's Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century is an interesting read there.

Not to mention the fact that during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, wars broke out between European countries at a rate of approx 3 per year (see Brecke's Conflict Catalog). At that rate even relatively bloodless conflicts can rack up a serious body count. And they weren't bloodless.

So again, it seems I can turn your exclamation around and say it's an anti-Enlightement prejudice when people forget how bad things were to belittle its achievements.

@Vinterburg

Can't say whether the majority respects you since I don't know who you are (and what you propose).

As a generic note and since we were talking about the historical progress, I would observe that people who propose alternatives (as you called it) always had to deal with resistance from the population at large. And it might be useful to note that the resistance traditionally involved things like being nailed to a wooden fixture or burned alive or other things of similarly painful nature.

By comparison it seems that being called "lazy and what not" is a relatively minor inconvenience, and the fact that it's minor is a fairly recent achievement. So not saying that we don't have a long way to go, but I think some progress has been made.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vinterberg said:

What choice do we have when we're born into this world?
1) Educate yourself in masses, no individualism here.
2) Use that education to get a job.
3) Retire, and hope that your government will look after you when you can't yourself any longer.
4) Die.
It's voluntary slavery, and I say this because: what choice do we have? If a person wants out of this madness, where could (s)he go? Which land could (s)he live in without limiting him/herself because of laws, regulations, owned property, wildlife preservation etc.? ›››

Seems that people have very different conceptions of freedom here. By your definition, freedom can only exist in impossible utopias where everything is provided for for everyone, meaning everyone can do whatever the hell they wanted. That's not going to happen.

Natural and social needs will of course put rules and norms, and ultimately that's what we are. We are social animals, who come together, make rules otherwise a group can't be sustained, all in order to surpass our natural limitations.

As for what choices we have. You can choose whatever education you want. You can choose what career you want. You can choose which ideology to subscribe to openly (unless it calls for the death of other people, in which case better be silent) and which God to worship without fearing murder. Depending on financial status and citizenship, you can move and live in other places. Do we have to work and get jobs? Yes, because of our economic and natural needs that are not going anywhere.

You may argue that all these things would not be needed in a subsistence based economy (though who farms the lands and shepherds the cattle?), and I'll tell you no thank you, the prospect is not appealing to me. We owe it to yourselves as a species to keep advancing. Yea we create problems on the way, that's trial and error. To shirk from it, imo, is simply letting the human potential go to waste.

Furthermore, studies show that time spent on hobbies and leisure activities has increased after the Industrial Revolution. People in general had more free time to do whatever they want, and with progressive social reforms, can get a lot of benefits.
You think a peasant had a great life and was free to do whatever he wanted? You think the son of a farmer had any chance of social mobility? They didn't have as much time devoted to leisure as we now do.

[Veleda]

grregg said:

@Veleda

Thanks. But I have to ask, have you read the study you linked? It doesn't provide the population adjusted homicide rate, but it does give the dates, so we can search. Granted, it's hard to exactly match the areas involved, but according to Wikipedia, London had 20000 to 50000 inhabitants between 1300AD and 1350AD. So given the average of about 15 murders per year that Summerson calculates, it results in the rate of 30 to 75 homicides per 100000 people per year (the standard measure).

That is part of the problem- the population rates of medieval London have been adjusted and re-adjusted, so it is not possible to accurately calculate the per capita murder rate. That is one of the methodological issues that the "violent" researchers will mention, but they go on to discount them anyway.

Quote

And I have to ask again, can you provide some sources for the low casualty rate in medieval wars?

For example, By Sword and Fire, or Blood Red Roses, which notes a savagery in late medieval warfare that is unusual compared to earlier periods but which becomes characteristic of early modernity, only made worse by the introduction of firearms and absolutist monarchies deciding their troops didn't need to bother with armor any more.

Chivalric codes provided for prisoner exchange, and also for courtly negotiation, that meant armies could meet, the knights get together and have a few beers, and then they all go home. This increasingly broke down in the late medieval to early modern. Knighthood declined and its code with it. Military leaders began to adopt "total war" policies. Rule was more absolutist, so the monarchs could get away with it.

You bring up Tuchman- you know Tuchman's Rule, don't you? The fact that something bloody and awful is mentioned tends to heighten ones perception of a time period being bloody and awful.

All this is not to say that the medieval period is not violent. But the scale of human devastation seen in the modern period is nothing like anything a medieval could have dreamed of.

Quote

Not to mention the fact that during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, wars broke out between European countries at a rate of approx 3 per year (see Brecke's Conflict Catalog). At that rate even relatively bloodless conflicts can rack up a serious body count. And they weren't bloodless.

So again, it seems I can turn your exclamation around and say it's an anti-Enlightement prejudice when people forget how bad things were to belittle its achievements. />/>

That is early modern. So, apparently we're saying the same thing? />

[Vinterberg]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Seems that people have very different conceptions of freedom here. By your definition, freedom can only exist in impossible utopias where everything is provided for for everyone, meaning everyone can do whatever the hell they wanted. That's not going to happen.

Natural and social needs will of course put rules and norms, and ultimately that's what we are. We are social animals, who come together, make rules otherwise a group can't be sustained, all in order to surpass our natural limitations.

As for what choices we have. You can choose whatever education you want. You can choose what career you want. You can choose which ideology to subscribe to openly (unless it calls for the death of other people, in which case better be silent) and which God to worship without fearing murder. Depending on financial status and citizenship, you can move and live in other places. Do we have to work and get jobs? Yes, because of our economic and natural needs that are not going anywhere.

You may argue that all these things would not be needed in a subsistence based economy (though who farms the lands and shepherds the cattle?), and I'll tell you no thank you, the prospect is not appealing to me. We owe it to yourselves as a species to keep advancing. Yea we create problems on the way, that's trial and error. To shirk from it, imo, is simply letting the human potential go to waste.

Furthermore, studies show that time spent on hobbies and leisure activities has increased after the Industrial Revolution. People in general had more free time to do whatever they want, and with progressive social reforms, can get a lot of benefits.
You think a peasant had a great life and was free to do whatever he wanted? You think the son of a farmer had any chance of social mobility? They didn't have as much time devoted to leisure as we now do. ›››

Just suggesting that there must be many other viable ways of living as a race, instead of this - in ways that don't enslave and create difference depending on how far you're willing to go for your own fortune (criminals, politicians, coorporations etc. - the guys who controls the world we all live in).
If that's an utopia, a lala-land, something to be put to sleep before we even tried it - then I guess all hope is lost :/
With all these bright minds in this world, you mean to tell me that it's impossible for us humans to discover a way to live in any other way than the way we are currently living? That's what I call "thinking inside the box", using the knowledge given by this society to block the path to any possible new ones.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vinterberg said:

With all these bright minds in this world, you mean to tell me that it's impossible for us humans to discover a way to live in any other way than the way we are currently living? That's what I call "thinking inside the box", using the knowledge given by this society to block the path to any possible new ones. ›››

It's not impossible to improve what we have, with more efficient, less destructive, and sustainable economic models; progressive and egalitarian social policies; more accountable governments; active and dynamic citizenry....etc.

But to fundamentally alter it? I do not believe it's possible, and the serious and thought-out alternatives I don't find appealing. But hey, if people can come up with a feasible model, that would also be desirable and promotes human advancement as opposed to stagnation, I'd be all for it! Just that I haven't seen any.

[grregg]

@Veleda

Well, there surely is an uncertainty concerning the population of London, that's why I used a range. Even if we assume that the population was above the range, it would have to be unrealistically high to bring the homicide rate to anything resembling the current times. Again, the current rate is 2, which would require a population of, what, 700000? I think we can be pretty sure that London wasn't that big around 1300AD. So I think some progress has been made.

Thanks for the book pointers by the way. I'll check them out. Although I have to say that if you want to convince me that medieval (or chivalric?) warfare was relatively bloodless, then pointing out books that describe how violent it was is probably not the best strategy. Just sayin'

More seriously though, if you have access to the books, can you scan them quickly and tell me what sources they use to substantiate their claims of earlier combat being less bloody? I would rather be interested in those. Thanks.

And speaking of sources, when I pointed out that Brecke shows that wars in 15th century (and later) broke out pretty often, it wasn't to imply that 14th century was more peaceful. It's simply that Brecke's Conflict Catalog starts at 1400AD. Before that the data are too sketchy. (Actually I think they were trying to extend it but I haven't seen the results.)

So again, I don't really know of any evidence supporting the claim that medieval Europe was more peaceful/less violent in 14th century. Actually the usual trend is that when a goverment centralizes or a territory comes under a power of a more centralized goverment, the rate of violent death drops. That's not because goverments are nice, but because they clamp down on various private wars, vendettas and feuds that abound otherwise. See Hobbes for the theoretical treatment.

And as an aside, chivalry has good press, but while it might have been an improvement over the previous customs, to the modern eye it looks pretty barbaric. Shall I quote the famous passage from Lancelot-Grail about what a knight is allowed to do with a lady "without incurring blame or shame"? On a more serious note, cultures of honor generally cause a rise in the levels of violence since they tend to perpetuate various feuds and such. That's why such cultures generally go away once an effective government is established.

[Veleda]

grregg said:

@Veleda

Well, there surely is an uncertainty concerning the population of London, that's why I used a range. Even if we assume that the population was above the range, it would have to be unrealistically high to bring the homicide rate to anything resembling the current times. Again, the current rate is 2, which would require a population of, what, 700000? I think we can be pretty sure that London wasn't that big around 1300AD. So I think some progress has been made.

Thanks for the book pointers by the way. I'll check them out. Although I have to say that if you want to convince me that medieval (or chivalric?) warfare was relatively bloodless, then pointing out books that describe how violent it was is probably not the best strategy. Just sayin' />

I never said it was bloodless. I get the feeling you're not even listening to what I'm saying and honestly since the discussion is a tangent, it's about time to wrap it up.

Quote

More seriously though, if you have access to the books, can you scan them quickly and tell me what sources they use to substantiate their claims of earlier combat being less bloody? I would rather be interested in those. Thanks.

Are you serious? Sorry, that's a bit more work than I'm willing to do for a video game forum discussion.

Not meaning to be short with you, but anyway I have a feeling we are coming from different paradigms and hence going to see data differently anyway.

Quote

So again, I don't really know of any evidence supporting the claim that medieval Europe was more peaceful/less violent in 14th century. Actually the usual trend is that when a goverment centralizes or a territory comes under a power of a more centralized goverment, the rate of violent death drops. That's not because goverments are nice, but because they clamp down on various private wars, vendettas and feuds that abound otherwise. See Hobbes for the theoretical treatment.

No, no no. When states become centralized, that is when the bloodshed really gets going. I may be influenced by having specialized in German history, which becomes bleak and bleaker as you hit the 15th century. But I get the feeling as I move forward in time from medieval to the modern, that even as the philosophers are speaking very high-mindedly about humanist values, that the actual regard for human life drops precipitously. Medieval warfare is conducted largely by men who had names and ranks, modern warfare is a story of how much nameless cannon fodder you can put up against the other guy's nameless cannon fodder, until we get to our day where the real killers never even see their victims, or maybe only see them remotely through a satellite as they obliterate them and everything around them.

Again, this is an interesting discussion, but probably wound its course long ago.

[grregg]

Veleda said:

(...)

Again, this is an interesting discussion, but probably wound its course long ago.
›››

True enough, I think we informed each other about our respective positions and I doubt further progress can be made.

No doubt another opportunity will present itself soon, history of violence is an interesting topic.

[Veleda]

Thanks gregg, it was interesting, and reading over my last reply I see that I was curt- my apologies.

Good topic all in all, I have enjoyed KoP's "srs bsns" corner on this board.

[Demut]

KnightofPhoenix said:

[T]hough who farms the lands and shepherds the cattle?

Androids.

[Veleda]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Furthermore, studies show that time spent on hobbies and leisure activities has increased after the Industrial Revolution. People in general had more free time to do whatever they want, and with progressive social reforms, can get a lot of benefits.
You think a peasant had a great life and was free to do whatever he wanted? You think the son of a farmer had any chance of social mobility? They didn't have as much time devoted to leisure as we now do. ›››

I haven't closely followed your thread of the discussion lately, but would just remark that there is no way to quantify happiness. After you take care of Maslow, nothing much else matters IMO. The peasant in his field might be happier than your average modern person. I find a lot of modern life very dreary and dislocating. The things that aren't, haven't changed over the millennia.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wasn't talking about happiness, was talking about free time and leisure.

[Guy N'wah]

grregg said:

No doubt another opportunity will present itself soon, history of violence is an interesting topic. ›››

Speaking of the history of violence, I wonder:

When did laws for the protection of non-combatants in time of war come about? I know there's the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and the additional Protocols (1977), but since these are so relatively recent, I'm having a hard time believing there is no older foundation.

The oldest such law I know of is the "Law of the Splintered Paddle" (Kānāwai Māmalahoe) of the then-Kingdom of Hawai'i (1797), which rather poetically proclaimed the right of everyone "from the old men and women to the children... to go forth and lay beside the road" (that is, every non-combatant was free to travel and rest in safety, even in the midst of war: to be enforced according to the old Hawaiian formula, "Disobey, and die.")

One (possibly fanciful) account of the origin of this law: http://www.hawaii.ed...teredPaddle.pdf

But I'm sure there must be much older traditions and stated laws prohibiting violence against civilians in a war zone (even if they have never been much respected by armies in the field). I'm just at a loss for specific examples.

[dragonbird]

Guy N said:

I'm just at a loss for specific examples. ›››

The nearest that comes to mind immediately is this one:
"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"
Abu Bakr, 7th century.

Generally though, I've always got the impression that mercy to non-combatants was generally dependent on them (or their leaders) surrendering.

Edit: While looking for the exact quote for that one, I also found this. I'd never heard of it before, so somehow I suspect it wasn't very effective.

[Bloth]

Allfathers "sayings of the High One" warn that a man must not be too eager to do battle and be bloodthirsty, lest his neighbours gather to seal him inside his house and then burn it down. Don't know if that qualifies.

[grregg]

Guy N said:

Speaking of the history of violence, I wonder:

When did laws for the protection of non-combatants in time of war come about? I know there's the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and the additional Protocols (1977), but since these are so relatively recent, I'm having a hard time believing there is no older foundation.

(...)

But I'm sure there must be much older traditions and stated laws prohibiting violence against civilians in a war zone (even if they have never been much respected by armies in the field). I'm just at a loss for specific examples. ›››

Hmm... I think people have been decrying the cost of war and violence since forever. Didn't Odysseus say something about the fate of winding down our lives in painful wars from youth until we perish?

As far as rules about treatment of non-combatants, there are some in the Bible. Deuteronomy states that you're not allowed to rape your female captive until she had a month to grieve for her parents. And you're not allowed to sell her into slavery afterwards. Granted, it's a rather weak protection by today's standards but it shows that at least some thought was given to it.

As Veleda mentioned above, the code of chivalry also provides some rules that knights were supposed to obey in warfare. Lancelot for example had a custom to never kill a foe who begs for mercy (unless he was sworn beforehand to do so but nobody's perfect).

Whether the rules were obeyed any better than the famous papal ban of using crossbows against Christians is a separate question.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veleda said:

Good topic all in all, I have enjoyed KoP's "srs bsns" corner on this board. /> ›››

I'm glad to have catalyzed such awesome discussions.

Sadly, I hesitate to share my most recent article, only because we've had quite heated discussions about it already.

[slimgrin]

KnightofPhoenix said:

I'm glad to have catalyzed such awesome discussions.

Sadly, I hesitate to share my most recent article, only because we've had quite heated discussions about it already. ›››

You tease.